24 February 2000 Edition
Finucane campaign for public inquiry continues
BY LAURA FRIEL
Campaigners pressing for an independent public inquiry into the killing of Belfast defence lawyer Pat Finucane are to present a 30-page document outlining their case to the Dublin government this week. Geraldine Finucane and other members of the Finucane family, Jane Winters of British Irish Rights Watch, Paul Mageean of the Belfast-based Committee for the Administration of Justice and Mark Lawlor of Amnesty International, will attend the meeting. The Dublin government has already described the case for an inquiry as ``compelling''.
The degree of support for an inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane is unprecedented. The domestic and international legal community have spoken with one voice
Pat Finucane was killed in February 1989 when a number of masked gunmen broke into his home and shot him in front of his family. Since then, there has been repeated allegations of crown forces collusion in his death and widespread calls for a fully independent public inquiry into the allegation and circumstances surrounding the shooting.
Twelve months ago, the British government indicated that fresh consideration was being given to calls for such an inquiry. Despite assurances that the decision would be made ``within weeks'', a year has passed and no official decision has been announced.
Campaigners believe that a refusal by the British government to call an inquiry is not only at odds with their own criteria governing the implementation of legislation regarding inquiries, but is also a clear breach of the government's obligations under international law.
The legislation governing the holding of public inquiries, the Tribunal and Inquiries Act of 1921, primarily deals with the powers of the inquiry once it has been set up. The Salmon Commission of 1966 and the criteria of previous inquiries provide a guideline as to when a public inquiry should be called. The commission stated that an inquiry should be called in response to ``a nationwide crisis of confidence.''
Since 1921, the British government has invoked the act around 20 times and the focus of these inquiries has been allegations of serious misconduct by the government or public officials. These inquiries have included investigations into allegations of political corruption, police brutality, the Aberfan landslide disaster and the events of Bloody Sunday.
In 1998, when the British prime minister Tony Blair tabled a resolution to establish the current inquiry into Bloody Sunday, he stated that the particular circumstances of Bloody Sunday merited the establishment of a judicial inquiry. Campaigners on behalf of Pat Finucane believe the case meets the same criteria as that evoked by Blair in relation to Bloody Sunday. ``Where the state's own authorities are concerned we must be as sure as we can of the truth,'' said Blair.
The crisis of confidence provoked by the killing of Pat Finucane, and further intensified with the recent death of Lurgan defence lawyer Rosemary Nelson has extended far beyond either Britain and Ireland - it is not just ``nationwide'' but international. As campaigners will be pointing out to the Dublin government, the degree of support for an inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane is unprecedented.
``The domestic and international legal community have spoken with one voice in calling for an inquiry,'' says the document. Supporters include the Northern Ireland Law Society, the Northern Ireland Bar, the Law Society of England and Wales, the Chairperson of the Bar of England and Wales, the Irish Law Society, the Irish Bar, the American Bar Association and the International Bar Association.
Human rights groups supporting the call for a public inquiry include the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, which has called twice for the establishment of an inquiry, the Independent Scrutineer of Emergency Legislation, the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres, the International Commission of Jurists, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Federation International des Droits de l'Homme, the Committee for the Administrations of Justice and British Irish Rights Watch.
The major significance of the Finucane case, argues the document, lies not in the guilt or innocence of any particular individual but in the suggestion of state involvement. The report describes the inadequacies of the previous investigations by British police Chief John Stevens, neither of which have been published.
It is unclear to what extent these investigations focused on allegations of collusion into the Finucane killing. In 1999, John Stevens insisted that he had ``at no time'' ever previously investigated the death of Pat Finucane but that his inquiries into collusion ``were linked to the murder of Pat Finucane''. Stevens is currently heading an investigation into the Finucane murder.
Campaigners believe that a refusal by the British government to call a public inquiry would be in breach of their obligations under European Law. Under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires not just the protection of life but taken together with Articles 6 and 13, also requires careful, independent and effective investigation once there has been loss of life.
Speaking on behalf of the family, Martin Finucane said: ``The time has come for the British government to announce an inquiry into the murder of my brother Pat Finucane. Everything that has come to light points ever more sharply for this to happen. There is now only one honourable response to our demand for an inquiry. The Prime Minister Tony Blair, who possesses all of the answers to the questions we have raised, must establish an independent judicial inquiry without any further delay or prevarication.''
Getting away with murder
BY LAURA FRIEL
The British government is very frightened. The truth is bound and gagged but it's seeping out like blood through bandages and the stain on their reputation at home and abroad is spreading.
Agents of the state have been involved, directly and indirectly, in the murder of its citizens, in contravention of domestic law and all international human rights standards
The latest report on the killing of Belfast defence lawyer Pat Finucane compiled by British Irish Rights Watch (BIRW) concludes: ``The materials on which the report is based strongly suggest that agents of the state have been involved, directly and indirectly, in the murder of its citizens, in contravention of domestic law and all international human rights standards.''
Agents of the state involved in the ``murder of its citizens''... surely this is the most damning indictment of any body politic.
For Irish republicans in particular and northern nationalists in general for most of our adult lives collusion has been part of our experience of British occupation. But for many years, the allegation of collusion was like a voice crying into the wind. Largely unheard and too easily ignored.
In the eyes of the world, Britain was seen as the cradle of democracy; as a nation it had fought on the right side in two world wars, it's political and judicial institutions were revered in some of the most powerful countries across the globe.
This month marks the eleventh anniversary of Pat Finucane's death. Ten years ago, the claim that the British state colluded in the killing of a defence lawyer, ruthlessly gunned down in front of his family, would have been dismissed as incredible. Today it is increasingly recognised as a matter of fact.
In the orchestration of the killing of Pat Finucane and its aftermath, many elements within the collusion conspiracy came into play. In a detailed document, BIRW outlines many of the controversial aspects of the murder. BIRW notes that the briefing which prompted British Minister Douglas Hogg to make his now infamous remarks about defence lawyers in the North, came from RUC Special Branch and was most probably endorsed by the then RUC chief constable, John Herman.
The document highlights the RUC interrogators in detention centres like Castlereagh who promoted a climate of vilification against Finucane which included RUC officers suggesting Finucane as a target to a detained loyalist killer. The BIRW points to British agent Brian Nelson, who provided the loyalist assassination squad with the necessary information to target Finucane successfully.
The document outlines the role of an RUC Special Branch agent, William Stobie, who supplied the loyalist gang with their weaponry, including the weapon used in the killing, which was taken from a British Army barracks by a UDR soldier. The weapons were disposed of by Stobie afterwards. BIRW points a finger at Stobie's handlers, who made no attempt either to intervene to thwart the plan or to arrest the gang after the killing.
And central to the plot, the document highlights the role of a branch of British Military Intelligence, the Force Research Unit, a secret force with direct links to the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (Perhaps another one of the reasons why, in the wake of Pinochet's arrest, Thatcher no longer feels safe to travel abroad, just in case she's arrested for war crimes.)
Then we have the Director of Public Prosecutions who, after Brian Nelson was inadvertently arrested by the Stevens' team and charged with a series of killings and conspiracies, effectively scuttled the trial by accepting a plea bargaining deal in which the most series charges were dropped.
At trial, Nelson was defended by the British Army, a Colonel `J' and a British government representative, Cabinet member Tom King. The presiding judge also went along with the pantomime. Each small piece of information further illuminates the collusion landscape. And as the picture clears, it is increasingly one of ``agents of the state involved in the murder of its citizens''.
But as BIRW document points out, it isn't simply a matter of detail - the reaction of the British state and it's continuing fear of disclosure further indicates they have something to hide. Three months ago, the Sunday Times published a series of articles in which a former member of the FRU, the covert British military intelligence unit, implicated that unit in the Finucane murder.
The FRU operative, calling himself Martin Ingram, made a number of revelations about what he called `the dirty war'. Ingram claims that the FRU started the fire which destroyed the office of the Stevens' team and almost wrecked the investigation into collusion and more specifically the investigation into their agent Brian Nelson. The FRU action failed only because Stevens had kept copies of key documents at another location.
The fire took place on the same day that Brian Nelson temporarily fled to Britain in order to escape arrest by the Stevens' team. It is believed that Nelson fled following a tip off from the FRU, who in turn had been warned of Nelson's pending arrest by a member of the RUC. Ingram claimed that the FRU attempted to sabotage the Stevens Inquiry to gain more time to construct a alternative cover story for Nelson.
Three days after the first article appeared, on 25 November 1999, British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon obtained a court injunction banning the Sunday Times from publishing any more allegations by Martin Ingram. The British didn't deny Ingram was a former FRU operative, they didn't even challenge the truth of his statements, the British Secretary of State argued that Ingram owed ``a duty of confidence, secrecy to the Crown.'' Initially, the court barred the Sunday Times from even reporting the fact that they had been censored but this was later relaxed.
According to BIRW, London's Metropolitan Special Branch are now investigating the Sunday Times' allegations. However they are not investigating whether the FRU started the fire but whether Martin Ingram has breached the Official Secrets Act. On 17 December 1999, a soldier was arrested on suspicion of being Ingram by Metropolitan police officers in Wales at the request of the British Ministry of Defence.
The arrested soldier was taken to Charing Cross police station in London and held until the following day, when he was released without charge on police bail until February this year. During his detention, the soldier was questioned about possible Official Secrets offences. He was not asked about the fire and he was not interviewed by the Stevens' team. As BIRW points out: ``The authorities seem very anxious to cover up this story.''
But it isn't just a case of the state being anxious to cover up the detail of a crime which happened over ten years ago. After all, we have moved away from the military-led conflict of a decade ago, a Labour government has replaced the Conservatives and Maggie Thatcher has long been abandoned, not only by the British electorate but also by her own political party. Yet the details surrounding the shooting of Pat Finucane continue to be fiercely guarded by the British authorities.
It is not hard to understand why. The killing of Pat Finucane may have happened over ten years ago, but the mechanisms of state collusion are far from being a thing of the past. The FRU was disbanded shortly after the trial of Brian Nelson, only to be reactivated under another name.
If any of us needed reminding that the shadow of collusion continues to fall across our daily lives, the killing of Lurgan defence lawyer Rosemary Nelson last year and the exposure of continuing collusion at Stoneyford Orange Hall remain pertinent reminders. In the year 2000, agents of the British state continue to collude in ``the murder of its citizens'' in the north of Ireland.